Do Capitation‐based Reimbursement Systems Underfund Tertiary Healthcare Providers? Evidence from New Zealand

Somi Shin, Christoph Schumacher and Eberhard Feess ()

Health Economics, 2017, vol. 26, issue 12, e81-e102

Abstract: One of the main concerns about capitation‐based reimbursement systems is that tertiary institutions may be underfunded due to insufficient reimbursements of more complicated cases. We test this hypothesis with a data set from New Zealand that, in 2003, introduced a capitation system where public healthcare provider funding is primarily based on the characteristics of the regional population. Investigating the funding for all cases from 2003 to 2011, we find evidence that tertiary providers are at a disadvantage compared with secondary providers. The reasons are that tertiary providers not only attract the most complicated, but also the highest number of cases. Our findings suggest that accurate risk adjustment is crucial to the success of a capitation‐based reimbursement system. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3478

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:12:p:e81-e102

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().